On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Kim,
>>>> as far as I can see, TagType is a template parameter. What if this
>> parameter is of type unsigned?
>>>> Wouldn't we get a warning that the comparison '0 <= tag' is always
>> true? So why not cast the tag in the comparison as well '0 <=
>> (intx)tag’.
>> Remember when we were discussing the addition of -Wtype-limits, I said
> I had some code that would be tripped up by it due to a gcc bug fixed
> in 4.8? This is that code.
>> But even with the restriction of that warning flag to gcc4.8 and
> later, at the time I still needed the workaround. This was because
> the the Mac build tools we were using included gcc4.2, which
> unconditionally turned on the buggy version of -Wtype-limits checking,
> with no way to turn it off (-W[no-]type-limits didn't show up until
> gcc4.3). This is no longer a problem, now that we've updated the
> minimum supported build tools for the Mac, so the workaround can be
> removed.
>>> You also changed 'tag < (sizeof(uintx) * BitsPerByte' to 'tag <
>> BitsPerWord' but I don't think that is safe because it is not
>> guaranteed that sizeof(TagType)==BitsPerWord. Currently
>> FakeRttiSupport is only instantiated with TagType=Name where Name is
>> an enum but that enum can very well be less than 32-bit wide as the
>> C++ standard only requires that en enum is beeing backed up by an
>> underlying integral type which is big enough to hold all the enum
>> values. So I'd suggest to better keep the old assertion.
>> I don't understand this comment.
>> The change is to replace the expression
>> (sizeof(uintx) * BitsPerByte)
>> with the equivalent value'd (but simpler and more descriptive)
> expression
>> BitsPerWord
>> The purpose of validate_tag is to ensure the tag value is in the range
> [0, BitsPerWord) so that the shift in tag_bit is safe.
I thought you want to check that the tag value is in the range [0,
sizeof(TagType)*BitsPerByte) which is a stronger check because
sizeof(TagType)*BitsPerByte can be smaller than BitsPerWord. If that's
not the case your change is fine.
Thank you and best regards,
Volker
>> Nothing here cares about the size of TagType, only about the runtime
> value of the tag. It might be that the set of possible values for a
> given instantiation of TagType guarantee (some of) the range checks
> will pass, but that's not a problem, so long as the compiler doesn't
> inappropriately complain.
>>> Regards,
>> Volker
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Please review this removal of a workaround to avoid spurious compiler
>>> warnings when building on MacOSX.
>>>>>> With the move to a newer minimum compiler version for MacOSX, the
>>> workaround is no longer needed.
>>>>>> CR:
>>>https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8079093>>>>>> Webrev:
>>>http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8079093/webrev/>>>>>> Testing:
>>> JPRT
>>